Re: Proposal to cancel 2017-10-31 meeting
by Michael J Wolf
+1
Mike Wolf
IBM Power Linux Development
Rochester, Mn
Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh(a)redhat.com> wrote on 10/30/2017 08:04:06 AM:
> From: Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh(a)redhat.com>
> To: "server(a)lists.fedoraproject.org" <server(a)lists.fedoraproject.org>
> Date: 10/30/2017 08:04 AM
> Subject: Proposal to cancel 2017-10-31 meeting
>
> It's Halloween and my kids would like to go trick-or-treating :)
> _______________________________________________
> server mailing list -- server(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to server-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
5 years, 7 months
Release criteria proposal: clarify upgrade requirements
by Adam Williamson
Hi folks!
So at the most recent blocker review meeting, we discussed the intent
of the release criteria as regards upgrades. At present we have one
criterion, at Beta:
"For each one of the release-blocking package sets, it must be possible
to successfully complete a direct upgrade from fully updated
installations of the last two stable Fedora releases with that package
set installed."
Now my *intent* in writing this was that it should cover *only* out-of-
the-box installs of the release-blocking package sets; nothing beyond
out-of-the-box functionality was supposed to be covered.
However, there seemed to be strong agreement that failure of a release-
blocking Server role to upgrade correctly should block the release. At
least in my reading (and I wrote it!) the criterion doesn't really
cover that.
So I'm proposing changes to both make the meaning of the existing
criterion more clear, and explicitly cover the thing we agreed should
be covered.
1) Change the text of the existing criterion to read:
"For each one of the release-blocking package sets, it must be possible
to successfully complete a direct upgrade from a fully updated, clean
default installation of each of the last two stable Fedora releases
with that package set installed."
2) Add a new criterion to the Beta 'Server Product requirements'
section, titled "Server upgrade requirements", text:
"For each Featured Server Role, it must be possible to successfully
complete a direct upgrade from a fully updated installation of each of
the last two stable Fedora Server releases with that Server Role
deployed. The upgraded system must meet all relevant release criteria,
including criteria relating to functionality of the Server Role."
How does that sound? Thanks for any feedback!
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
5 years, 7 months
Chairperson needed for weekly meeting
by Stephen Gallagher
I have a conflict today and will not make it to the meeting. If someone
else can run it, please reply and let people know. If no one does, consider
it canceled for this week.
5 years, 8 months
Fedora 27 Talking points - Server section.
by Gabriele Trombini
Hello team,
I'm taking care of the Talking Points for the F27 release.
As usual the Marketing group is asking for the news for each section in the
related wiki page [1].
This group did a great work on release 26 and we need the same now for the
27.
Of course we would like having not only a mere list of features, rather a
general idea of the best and greater changes to allow each part of the
project, specially Ambassadors, to take this into account to promote the
new release. Is there anyone in the server group which is able to help on
this?
Thanks in advance.
--
Gabri
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_27_talking_points
5 years, 8 months